Re: apt vs aptitude (was ... Re: non-stable packages infestation)
I think use aptitude or apt is more a personal decision than any other
thing, however I believe aptitude is more powerful.
----------
Marco T. Segura M.
«Cuando naciste, todos reían y solo tu llorabas, asegurate que al
morir, todos lloren y solo tu rías.»
Confucio
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Tim Kelley <tim.kelley.nola@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the reason some prefer apt is that aptitude has more finely grained
> dependency handling and the dependencies have grown tremendously over the
> years (over 40,000 discrete packages now). Even though apt will not break
> anything, it's never a bad idea to use aptitude as it always offer
> solutions. It's slower to search than apt-cache but it is much more powerful
> in searching. Aptitude does a LOT more than apt-get. It like an apt-*
>
> I really use them interchangeably, and synaptic and other tools as well. It
> really doesn't matter.
>
> But here's a copy / paste of the major differences:
>
> aptitude will automatically remove eligible packages, whereas apt-get
> requires a separate command to do so
> The commands for upgrade vs. dist-upgrade have been renamed in aptitude to
> the probably more accurate names safe-upgrade and full-upgrade,
> respectively.
> aptitude actually performs the functions of not just apt-get, but also some
> of its companion tools, such as apt-cache and apt-mark.
> aptitude has a slightly different query syntax for searching (compared to
> apt-cache)
> aptitude has the why and why-not commands to tell you which manually
> installed packages are preventing an action that you might want to take.
> If the actions (installing, removing, updating packages) that you want to
> take cause conflicts, aptitude can suggest several potential resolutions.
> apt-get will just say "I'm sorry Dave, I can't allow you to do that."
>
>
> Tim Kelley
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Francisco M Neto <fmneto@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I actually miss the good'ol days of dselect. Apart from that I've been
>> using a combination of apt for small tasks and synaptic for large numbers of
>> packages.
>>
>>
>> On 04/27/2015 08:21 AM, Teresa e Junior wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 11:40:37 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Monday 27 April 2015 11:35:42 Chris Bannister wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 03:22:33AM -0300, Teresa e Junior wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 19:16:24 -0400, Kynn Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm considering going back to apt, even though most of the advice
>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>> read on apt vs aptitude leans in favor of the latter. After this
>>>>>>> experience, I've lost trust in aptitude.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Probably old advice, apt is the most recommended nowadays.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think that is true at all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. There are pros and cons. I like and use aptitude.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, I thought I read somewhere that aptitude is not recommended
>>> anymore, but looking back, what really happened is that I had many negative
>>> experiences with aptitude (it would always try to uninstall packages
>>> installed by apt), so the right sentence would be "apt is the most
>>> recommended nowadays by me"®
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a
>> subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>> Archive: [🔎] 553E29E1.6010708@gmail.com">https://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 553E29E1.6010708@gmail.com
>>
>
Reply to: